(no subject)
"Addressing whether or not Washington should honor the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War, the president's chief legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales, warned him in a memorandum of January 25, 2002 that U.S. law - the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 2441) - prohibits "war crimes" defined to include any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War. Gonzales made it clear that this prohibition applies to U.S. officials and noted that punishments for violations of Section 2441 include the death penalty.
Gonzales advised the president that, in the opinion of Ashcroft's Justice Department, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al-Qaeda and that the president had the authority to determine that they also do not apply to the Taliban.
...
There is nothing in the Geneva Conventions that gives anyone the right to make a unilateral decision to exempt opposing forces."
"Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to the president, outlined the pros and cons of the government’s decisions about the treatment of prisoners in the so-called war on terrorism. Gonzales agreed with President George W. Bush that because “the war against terrorism is a new kind of war,” the Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War need not be heeded. As Gonzales wrote, “this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions . . . . [It] eliminates any argument regarding the need for case-by-case determinations of POW status.” An official presidential determination that the Geneva Convention “does not apply to al Qaeda and the Taliban,” Gonzales opined, “substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441).” That statute, he added pointedly, “prohibits the commission of a ‘war crime’ by or against a U.S. person, including U.S. officials. . . . Adhering to your determination that [the Geneva Convention] does not apply would guard effectively against misconstruction or misapplication of [the War Crimes Act]. . .” and thus would serve as “a solid defense to any future prosecution.” "
"Curiously, it was in his role as legal counsel to then-Gov. Bush that Gonzales penned yet another memo pertaining to international law, only in that case his advice was designed not to avoid death sentences, but rather to expedite them on Texas' heavily populated death row. On June 16, 1997, Gonzales first showcased his proclivity for torturing international law when he sent a letter to the U.S. State Department in which he argued that, "Since the State of Texas is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, we believe it is inappropriate to ask Texas to determine whether a breach … occurred in connection with the arrest and conviction" of a Mexican national. Or, put another way, he asserted that an international treaty just didn't apply to Texas.
The Mexican in question, Irineo Tristan Montoya, was a fisherman convicted of brutally stabbing and murdering John Kilheffer in Brownsville, Texas, in 1985. Tristan, who insisted he was innocent, was executed two days after Gonzales sent his memo to State, despite protests from the Mexican government. Mexico alleged that Texas had violated Tristan's rights under the Vienna Convention because it had failed to inform the Mexican consulate at the time of his arrest.
The Vienna Convention, ratified by the Senate in 1969, was designed to ensure that foreign nationals accused of a crime are given access to legal counsel by a representative from their home country. In the absence of a lawyer and without access to Mexican authorities, Tristan, who neither spoke nor understood English, signed a confession that he later said he believed to be an immigration document.
...
Two years later, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright weighed in on the Vienna Convention as Texas prepared to execute a Canadian national, Joseph Stanley Faulder. In a letter to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Albright wrote: "I am deeply troubled by the failure of consular notification in this case. Texas has conceded that the [Vienna Convention's] requirement of consular notification was violated. … It is clear that, but for these failures, Canadian consular officials would have visited Mr. Faulder in prison and offered him assistance … when such assistance would have been critical."
There were other problems with the Faulder conviction, among them that the state had paid its chief witness more than $10,000 and that Faulder's prosecutor was literally paid for by the victim's family-a judicial innovation apparently unique to Texas. In an "execution summary" he prepared for Bush, Gonzales acknowledged the violation of the Vienna Convention, but concluded that it was "harmless error." Faulder was executed on June 17, 1999.
For his part Bush suggested at the time that the main message of the Faulder case was, "People can't just come in our state and cold-blood murder somebody." Unmoved by the violation of international law, Bush simply chose to disregard it and get on with the execution. During his tenure as governor, Bush signed off on 152 executions. He commuted only one death sentence to life when it became clear that the condemned man could not have committed the murder for which the state was preparing to execute him."
"Newsweek, which published a memo written by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales urging the Bushies to formally discard the Geneva Convention because it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act." The Act provides for penalties for "U.S. officials" that "includes the death penalty" for violations, in part defined as "grave breaches" of the Convention. Since "it was difficult to predict with confidence" just how a future Justice Department might choose to apply and interpret the law, Gonzales warned, the administration had better watch its back.
Gonzales defends himself by claiming that none of this applies to what happened at Abu Ghraib prison - only to the Afghan theater and Guantanamo - that the memo makes no specific mention of Iraq, and the Geneva Convention does apply in Iraq. Yet MSNBC News cites "defense sources" as saying that the memo was utilized as the legal rationale for the "do what thou wilt" strategy in Iraq"
And in a 2001 interview with Jim Lehrer:
JIM LEHRER: New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis was on this program last night and he said the way the order is drafted, some 20 million foreigners living in the United States could be tried under this. Is he right?
ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, let me just say, Jim, that the order is requiring the president of the United States himself to make a determination that is in the best interests of this country, that a member of al-Qaida or another terrorist from another terrorist group or someone who has harbored a member of al-Qaida, that that person should be subject to the jurisdiction of military commissions. And again, the commission is only going to be entitled to try someone for violations of the law of war.
JIM LEHRER: But why was it not more specific in terms of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden and those folks?
ALBERTO GONZALES: To provide maximum flexibility for this president to deal with contingencies unforeseen, Jim.
JIM LEHRER: So in other words it could apply to people beyond al-Qaida?
ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, again, we need to wait and see if the regulations promulgated by the Department of Defense. This is only the first step that's been taken. The Department of Defense is now in the process of promulgating the rules and regulations by which -- which will govern these military commissions.
...
ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, they're both obviously equally important, Jim. Obviously, those who were responsible for the acts of Sept. 11 should be caught and they need to be punished.
But equally important, is to do everything that we can to insure that there are no future attacks on Americans here or overseas.
JIM LEHRER: That's new, though, is it's not? Isn't that a new direction for the FBI and Justice Department?
ALBERTO GONZALES: Jim, I think that has been a priority from day one.
JIM LEHRER: No, I mean day one since Sept. 11. But prior to Sept. 11, wasn't the FBI primarily a law enforcement agency that investigated crimes that had already been committed, rather than in the business of prevention?
ALBERTO GONZALES: Jim, I don't feel comfortable answering that question. You'll have to talk to the Director Mueller. But again I would just repeat that preventing terrorism has been a priority for the FBI, and capturing those who are responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11 remain a priority.